JUDGE RALPH HASLAG: As short or as long as you would like, Senator.

     CASKEY: Well, what I thought maybe......

     HASLAG: I can keep you on time.

     CASKEY: What I thought maybe we might do, since on the last one, we had to cut the questioning short to keep on schedule. We might stop you at about 20 minutes, and give us about 10 minutes for questioning. Thank you, Judge.

     HASLAG: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. I'm Ralph Haslag, and I'm an associate circuit judge from Rolla, which is the 25 judicial circuit.

     I'm here today as a team member of the MARCH committee, a committee which ultimately you all are responsible for, by funding some research in the past few years.

     The key thing that I think in order to address what MARCH is about, and how it may address some of your concerns, is to tell you, briefly, about MARCH's original goals, and I apologize. I've got an outline here that I don't if all of you can see, but I was told I needed to stay wedded to this microphone here, so I'll try and do that.

     All of the - most of the items which I'm talking with you about are contained in written materials, I think, which Ms. Armstrong has handed out to you.

     The MARCH project began about a year ago and there was two main goals that the committee, which is made up of judges, mediators, court personnel and others, who are really interested in solving. One is in the child support enforcement process, and, as all of us know, if either the custodial parent request it, or over a period of time, either three years or five years, the custodial parent is automatically given a review if child support should be increased, and, of course, once again, that is done, the state process pays for that process, goes through the process of child support. If the amount is determined to be increased, once again, child support pays for that process at no cost to the custodial parent, and forces that support agreement. Now, on the other hand, if the noncustodial parent had issues that they want to address three or five years down the road, at this point, there is no state avenue for them to do that, and we're talking about issues as simple as change in visitation times. Perhaps, one of the parents have relocated. Perhaps, we have a transportation issue that needs to be involved, or even special needs from something as simple as eyeglasses to orthodontics, to more complicated counseling and other issues.

     And, what we're looking under the MARCH project is giving the noncustodial parent an avenue in which at least some of their needs can be addressed. Now, we're not talking about giving them a free attorney, but we are talking about giving the right to ask for, and have mediation ordered to address these issues in a nonconfrontational setting.

     The second issue that the MARCH goal has is in paternity areas, and, in particular, there were two areas where, as a committee, we felt that .......

     DOUGHERTY: Pardon me, just a minute. Judge, is there any way you can prop that up? Nobody can see it, except maybe the Senator from the Columbia district there. And, he's not that good of a translator today.

     HASLAG: I'll prop this up as long as you can hear me.

     The second issue on paternity is, we were seeing some unfairness in the court process is, once again, if a mother sought state benefits from the child was born, of course, she was required to - the child support enforcement was required to get involved in the process, determine who the father was, and then have that father pay child support. But, that same mother could be involved in a situation where, after the child support was ordered, there's no one out there to help her determine custody. So, if we get the situation where dad comes in and says, I'm not the father, but after being determined the father, I want custody, then mom, who was obviously suffering financial consequences when she asked for benefits is now in a situation where she's fighting for custody without anyone to assist her. An attorney, once again, and serves several parts of the state. In some parts, legal aid has sufficient funds to assist her. In a lot of courts, she doesn't. That's the current situation.

     The other, of course, is the responsible father in the paternity situation, and while I'm talking about a situation where dad comes in and says, "Okay, I am the father. I agree. I should pay support. Now, will you help establish visitation rights?" Once again, under the current system, dad has to go out, hire his own attorney, and go through the court process in order to get that done. Once again, in this situation, we're not talking about the state providing free legal assistance to these individuals, what we are talking about is state providing them with the process whereby they can mediate these particular differences at no cost to them.

     That's, in essence, the initial goals of the MARCH project. But, where this fits in, as far as you all at this point, as far as the legislature is concerned, excuse me, at this point, is I think it serves as a potential guideline for several issues that you have, including the access denial issue that's before you, and I think all of us in the state, both judicial and legislature are looking for quick, efficient, and low-cost means to resolve some of these post-disillusion matters, and, so that's basically the goals.

     Now, for many, the question is, why use mediation, and I think we need to focus on two things, and one is, is we have to recognize the fact that in the current judicial system, in a truly contested case, it's a relationship destroying process, and you just heard Judge Frawley, by the time that individuals are through with the contested case, the judge has made a decision that will resolve those issues that day, but we don't have two parents out there are likely to talk together any time soon and resolve the problem that's one or two years down the pike. Mediation works from the opposite end, instead of in a court setting. You talk about each of the parent's weaknesses. You work from the other end and work on strengths.

     The second is, as far as the party to the mediation over court system, it gives the parties future tools for resolution, and I think Ms. Kaiser talked on that this morning, as well. I guess the key statistic that I continue to abide by during my support of mediation in the last six years is one I learned at the national judicial college in 1991, that is, in a contested custody case, where the judge has to make a decision, in approximately 45 percent of those cases, that judge or a judge and assistant is going to have to make another decision down the road. In mediation, the statistic is true mediated custody cases where custody is resolved. Less than five percent of those cases end up back in the court system where the custody has to be tried as an issue.

     Once again, I want to point out, mediation is not a cure-all. Statistics in other states that have used mediation show that child success rate is between 50 and 70 percent. Now, in Missouri, particularly, on the MARCH project and related type of issues, what we're talking about resolving visitation and some of the minor issues, we're hopeful that the statistics will be closer to 70 than to 50, but there are cases where when one party emotionally is not ready to settle the case, where we have an abuse situation which is not appropriate for mediation, or, of course, we have a power struggle when the mediator determines the parties really aren't equally bargaining position. A mediation won't work there. So, obviously, the court system still has to be the answer for that.

     Who is MARCH, and why are we here? Once again, actually, those of you who funded, or provided funding for child support enforcement over the last four years, in that budget was $150,000 for research, each of those years, and that money was used to train mediators in other parts of the state, but that was actually the core from which this project started.

     Two things happened in the middle of last year that actually coalesced this committed. One is, I'll have to admit that I think, as committee members, we decided that perhaps there was a little much, too much devotion to bureaucracy and it was time to really move on, and the committee, this is actually an ad hoc committee that formed and moved forward.

     The second, we have to give credit to Ms. Kaiser. When we had this proposal before her, we had a couple of frank conversations. Her position was clear. She wanted a well evaluated, efficient project. In return, she would find the funding one way or another and she has been a consistent supporter of this project after we've demonstrated that we can provide a quality service.

     As far as the MARCH coverage. There were four circuits that are currently involved, and most of you have a handout that cover those circuits. They include Kansas City, an urban area, and, of course, probably the leader in the state as far as mediation or one of the leaders. We have Clay County, which is just north of Kansas City. It's a county of 200,000, relatively high density, high income. We have Jefferson County, which is the 23rd, which is, once again, a high population circuit, tending to be more low to moderate income, and then we have my circuit, which is the 25th, which is the out state rural circuit. There is a possibility that as of January 1st, or before January 1st, the 32nd, which would be Cape Girardeau would be the 5th pilot project going on line. The coverage is more particular described in your handout, as well.

     As far as our MARCH time line, the complete time line that was in effect, as of a few months ago, has been included in your materials.

     Basically, what we have is a 14-month project which started August 1st, and is designed to conclude September of ‘98. The key parts of that project, in addition to proving that mediation works, is a heavy evaluation component. Once again, with Ms. Kaiser's insistence, as well as other committee members, to evaluate it and make sure it happens.

     Our second primary concern is any pilot project has minor problems that need to be worked out. With the circuits that are involved, and the team members that are part of MARCH committee, we feel, we can, I guess, debug, is the word I used here, any minor problems that exist.

     The key as far as we're concerned, is to deliver a quality proposal that will work, whether it's rural Missouri or inner city, in particular, with regard to the areas we talked about, and that's the three components.

     After I was asked to speak here today, I talked with committee members. One of the questions was, is what can we do as far as legislation? In talking with committee members, once again, today, as far as how the final legislative product should be or something for your consideration, we don't have that, and that's because of the way we drafted the project. It was designed. We have an idea. We have key people who will take this idea and put it in their process, and then we'll look at making what changes are necessary so that we think we can get to you a proposal that will work in any area of the state, and will definitely serve to benefit.

     I think there's some key components that we're looking at to suggest to you.

     Number one is, whatever is done by this committee, any final suggestions has to be quality related. I think we're looking at the fact, and I think it addresses certain questions that some of you have asked before of Judge Frawley and Ms. Kaiser, that we definitely, we don't want to try and create a new bureaucracy. We have to minimize the state dollars that are necessary to get this into existence and we want to utilize existing resources and by that, and, perhaps, this is more my personal, at this point, but I believe there are attorneys and psychologists and others who exist in each of the communities, whether it's Rolla or St. Louis, who can deliver mediation services without us having to set up a state organization. Maybe there's going to have to be contracts and that sort of thing, but, I see us using the existing individuals who are on those committees, or in the communities, to provide the services. In my own mind, in a much more productive matter, in a mediation setting versus in a contested court setting.

     Eventually, if this project is adopted by you in any form, there are a couple legislative components that we'll need. As Judge Frawley has indicated, on those cases not directly before the court, at this point, there is a question of whether a judge has the authority to order mediation. One of the individuals on our committee is Judge Dougherty of Kansas City. He's the head of the ADR committee, and with his input, of course, we've used a combination of Missouri Supreme Court rule 88 and 17 to order the mediation, but, obviously, a clear mandate to be able to order mediation for minor resolutions is definitely necessary. Same thing as Judge Frawley has touched on earlier.

     One of the problems for visitation in the minor issues, in addition to just legal costs, is court costs, and what we're doing on a pilot basis in these four counties, when these issues are resolved, we're using a federal mandate, plus the court's inherent power to remit court costs to make sure that there's no denial of access, because an individual failed to pay. But, on minor issues, we're looking at the fact we probably need a clear mandate to reduce court costs or not have court cost at all for those type of cases. And, then, of course, there will be, unfortunately, some funding that will be necessary. That's the fact of life, but at this point, what that would be, we're not in a position. I can tell you this, that the directive we had when we set this out from the four circuits, is that it couldn't cost over $325.00, per case, to mediate, and then we left it up to each circuit to develop how they could do that within that process.

     Senator, that concludes my presentation.

     CASKEY: Any questions?

     RIDGEWAY: Senator, I have a question.

     CASKEY: Yes.

     RIDGEWAY: Could you tell me, again, the mediators. I'm from Clay County, and I know a few of the folks who are out there doing it, but I've never been familiar with the process of how the mediator was chosen or what qualifications they had, or who appointed them, if the attorney's went out together and hired them or what? Explain some of the practicalities of that.

     HASLAG: Okay, the person coordinating the project in Clay County, is Carol Dwyer. She's a juvenile officer who's coordinated mediation services, I believe there for several years. The committee member who's on the committee is Commissioner Mike Walker, who's been a supporter for a long time. They have a list, I believe, of ten to fifteen - Judge Chadwick's here. Help me. But, it's over ten. Primarily attorneys in Clay County who are referred cases on a rotating basis for the MARCH project, and they - in the previous years what they've done, in contempt of court cases, Commissioner Walker has utilized these same mediators to try and resolve, by mediation, when a person comes in who's failed to pay child support, if they say there's a visitation issue, then he's ordered the parties, both parties into mediation, and utilized those mediators.

     RIDGEWAY: And, currently, they're either privately paid or partly out of some court funds?

     HASLAG: Right. I'm sorry for not going into the funding. The MARCH project was funded by $50,000 of the state funds which we have, plus $170,000 in federal funds for this 14-month period, and then the circuits each have a budget. I think Clay County's is $47,500 of that.

     RIDGEWAY: Thank you.

     CASKEY: Any other questions?

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

     CASKEY: Yes, Representative.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Judge, I spoke with Judge Patterson, from Jefferson County, our circuit, of course, and he's very hip on this plan. In one week's time, we've had ten requests for mediation since the implementation of the pilot, which is substantial, considering we have over 10,000 child support enforcement cases. Judge Patterson cautioned, of course, that he didn't want us to lock into any mandatory mediation until we had a chance to evaluate. You've indicated the importance of that as well. When will we get the evaluation?

     HASLAG: Well, once again, we were notified of the funding on July 22nd. We began on a limited basis, August 1st. All four circuits were on line and running October 1st. So, for two of the four circuits, we've only been on-line, running, full tail, 13 days.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Very short time.

     HASLAG: And, objectively, I just can't give you any evaluative data at this point. There's a chance we may have some early results by January which would still be in time for this legislative session. I think the true and total evaluative data won't be done until 1998. In any event, should this concept, should you all consider this concept, I look at the fact that we'll have four to five circuits this year. If the project continues to merit further consideration, we can probably double that to 10 circuits, starting September through September of ‘99, and we're looking at this on a statewide basis, you know, the two years from now would probably be the earliest that it could be implemented. But, if some of  the evaluation that's going to tell us what we're doing right, and if there's anything we're doing wrong. The earliest initial is going to be January and the final is not going to be until September.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Thank you, Judge. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     DOUGHERTY: Does anyone else have a question? Judge, thank you, very much.

     CASKEY: Thank you, Judge.